the_house_of_anubisfandomcom-20200215-history
User blog:Corbierr/A rant on double standards, sexism, all that fun stuff (in terms of fiction)
Hey guys. Today's blog will be a little...different. Rather than rant about Anubis stuff, I have a bigger topic in mind. Today, I want to discuss...double standards and sexism in fiction. I will be using Anubis examples to help explain my points, but it's not an Anubis-centered blog. So, let's talk about the roles of females. Specifically, the "strong independant woman" type, who are there to represent "stronger" female characters, but are also often love interests to the main characters. They exist to be tough and "powerful", often showing insecurities and having to have her defenses broken in order to get with the hero. This bothers me. For one thing, these females are made strong and powerful to avert the portrayals of women being weak and incompetent. That's all fine and good...but why do we need to portray these "strong, independant women" as the exceptions? Like, oh, she's not a normal female- she's strong! Like a guy! ''That'll make her well written, right? Why do females need to act masculine and tough in order to seem "strong"? Isn't that sort of insulting? What we need is diversity, damn it. And I don't mean like, we have the one strong female and then the girly-girl who is weak and incompetent. Portray every character, regardless of gender and regardless of "strength", as an active, rounded and competent character. Just because someone wears a dress and doesn't like to throw a punch doesn't mean they can't be just as competent and effective as the "strong female" who wears pants and beats up all her enemies. They just might have different skill sets that make them useful. And then there are the double standards that go along with this sort of thing. One of the ones that get to me the most- one that pops up in HOA almost constantly- is that no matter what a girl acts like, how independant and competent she may be on her own, she needs a man in her life. If she's not a lesbian or a crazy man hater, they have to act as a love interest and her focus is often centered around him and, in effect, she becomes "weak" so that the man can protect her better like men must do. Of course, the boys don't have this. They can get by without showing interest in females, and even when they are dating, they are often the protector, the one who must eventually save his love interest and the world. Gender-flips are becoming more common nowadays, but it's usually always played for comedy and often pokes fun at the man for not being masculine enough that he needs to be protected by a girl. We came a long way from the girls who were just there to be nothing more than the chick who gets saved. But why can't we just having things...be a little different? To use HOA as my example, let's take Patricia. We're using her because she was the tough girl; the one-woman army. In season one, any chances for her to have romance were few and in between and usually played for a joke or for Fabina purposes. She didn't have a boyfriend or a crush, and thing is, that was perfectly fine. Yes, it brought Patrome to the forefront as they were the two people not yet dating. But Patricia's appeal had nothing to do with Patrome. It was because she was relatable, loyal, brave and engaging- and leading her own quest for Joy. Maybe it sounds hypocritical for me to be praising her for being strong and competent when blasting "strong independant female" characters above. But what I'm praising her for is being genuinely independant and genuinely strong. Not like, throwing a punch and beating up the guys strong; she was strong in the way that she had determination and a mission, the ability to keep herself going against all odds. That's what makes her strong in my opinion- the kind of strong that more characters should be, as opposed to because she acts like a guy or doesn't wear dresses. (Speaking of Patricia in dresses, let's talk about TOR for a second, excuse the tangent, but this needs to be said. We like to get angry about the idea of Patricia running around in a dress, but I think the issue here is not that she's putting on something "girly", but the reason behind it. It seems to say that instead of just being herself to try and get Eddie that way, and instead of putting on a dress because she's genuinely changing and genuinely wants to wear it, it's because it's apparently ''okay to do things like that for a guy, and it's okay to laugh at it even though the dress itself did not get in the way of her still being Patricia. Just because she was wearing something pink and frilly doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just doesn't suit her character and sends a horrible, horrible message to girls.) In other words, she had personality and drive, and that would have appealed to me even if she ran around in dresses and acted more like a stereotypical girl- in fact, that might have even been cooler, and more surprising to boot. (Even though it shouldn't be done for the shock value as I mentioned above.) She didn't need to date anybody, because we liked her for her- we liked her personality, plotline and development. Season 2, however, changed that. It's not that they gave her an overhaul, "weakened" her jurastically or even took away the traits that made her herself. Despite anything I've said about her, they did not turn Patricia OOC or strip her of her fire, and I realize that now. What they did do was give her a love interest in the form of Eddie. On paper, this is just fine. After all, making a character start dating does not equal ruining them and can even be amazing for development. The problem is that her focus became all about Eddie. She was missing missions because she was with him instead, she spent at least half of every episode since his arrival either thinking about him or spending time with him, and all her "development" was focused around him. To be clear, I'm not calling Season 2 Patricia a bad character. But there is something wrong here when this is portrayed as perfectly normal. And yes, in real life, people do spend a lot of time thinking about their significant other/crush. But that's not all people think about! And in a season where the romance felt more of a focus than the mystery, in a season where no girl was spared from the romance drama (even Piper, who was on the show for three episodes, and Vera of all people got in on the fun;)...what is this meant to say about our world? What's it mean when all the girls, even the one who was shown to be completely fine and competent without a boyfriend in her life, are written as boy-obsessed, while the guys had their share of the drama... but also were dealing with plots like family and redemption? And hey, what about having Fabian be Nina's protector and all that jazz, showing that even a wimpy nerd is more liable to be the more competent one in comparison to his girlfriend? Season 3 might not have been as bad in this regard, to be completely honest. At least KT didn't need a boyfriend (crush on Eddie nonwithstanding). At least Patricia, and all her jealousy, was able to do some things completely unrelated to Eddie. At least Amber's final arc was to do with her father, her future, and Sibuna, not her relationship with Alfie. At least Fabian was able be more than just "Nina's boyfriend" and start having a story of his own... With all the romance drama, I do have to credit them on some things... And for more double standard fun, how about female-on-male "abuse" (maybe it's not the right word, but I can't think of a different one) in comparison to male-on-female? Jerome's cheating was shown as being a rightfully dick move...but that loses it's punch when Mara not only was falling for Jerome when Mick was gone (and not to mention the Jara kiss in front of Mick before she officially broke up with him!) but also was flirting with Eddie at the same time. Eddie keeping secrets from Patricia was portrayed as being wrong even when he had no reason to trust her about things like his father secret, but Patricia not only keeping secrets from Eddie but also using said secret (also known as Piper) to trick him and Mr. Sweet is treated as just a comedic misunderstanding that can be cleared up with ease. Not to mention, Patricia's jealousy over any girl Eddie ever spoke to ever is shown as...not admirable, exactly, but not wrong either, where Eddie being jealous over Alfie/Benji/Jerome is comedic either because of how ridicuous it is, or because "he deserves it" for not having jumped to get Patricia back (never mind that she is certainly capable of having been the one to make the first move, another upsetting double standard...). And in other shows, it's seen as humorous when a boy gets hurt by a girl. Clearly, he should be laughed at for being so weak, and the girl is "strong" for not just being subservient to him. But if the roles were reversed, people would be tearing the show apart. It's not like girls can't do genuine harm to a man physically, or manipulate, or assault, when the man is a "real man", right? Oh, and usually this girl is seen as being just "insecure" and actually loving the man she abuses (if she's not just suffering from being abused by her father/ex boyfriend before or isn't just a crazy, man-hating feminazi). Everyone, girls can hurt boys. If guys slapping girls around on screen is "offensive" and "sexist", then it should be the same for girls doing the same to guys. Men being "weak" doesn't make them acceptable abuse targets, just as a women being "strong" shouldn't justify her being abusive. Gender shouldn't matter. Abuse is fucking abuse, no matter who the victim is. Media has become much more open and accepting just as the real world itself is beginning to change. So why can't we start seeing more female characters who aren't love interests in some way- female characters who also get to be the leads? Why can't we see more female superheroes and more diverse female villains? Why can't we start portraying it as wrong when girls abuse guys, and why can't we start portraying females as being strong even when they choose to wear dresses; why must we continue to portray men, for that matter, as not being "true men", unless they are real masculine? Why can't we just accept the world as being as diverse, complicated and morally gray as it is, rather than try and show us what should be acceptable for what gender? Why not just portray people as being people, and make gender mostly incidental? Let's face it, people. These things should not just be blindly accepted in today's society, let alone enforced. So why can't we strive to change them, starting with our own fiction peices and our attitude towards these double standards in general? ''Thanks for reading, everyone! '' ''Please also read chapter 2 of chapters 2 and 3 of Classified! Also,don't forget about Chapter 2 of Artemis! '' Category:Blog posts